Cookies on The Times of India website

The Times of India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the The Times of India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our
Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our
Privacy Policy

Has Japanese government abandoned pacifism by reinterpreting its constitution?

Write for TOI Blogs

Interested in blogging for timesofindia.com? We will be happy to have you on board as a blogger, if you have the knack for writing. Just drop in a mail at toiblogs@timesinternet.in with a brief bio and we will get in touch with you.

Has Japanese government abandoned pacifism by reinterpreting its constitution?

Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, has started a process to reinterpret a critical part of the country’s constitution. The result of this reinterpretation is that it will allow the Japanese military to help friendly countries under attack, a development that has caused anxiety in East Asian countries that were once at the receiving end of Japan’s armed aggression. Not all reactions have been negative. The reinterpretation has been welcomed by Japan’s most important ally, US. The Japanese government’s move does not indicate it has given up on pacifism. Instead, it represents a pragmatic approach to changed circumstances in the region and shows Japan as a country prepared to take steps to secure its legitimate interests.

Following World War II, Japan embraced a constitution which renounced war and possession of war potential. The country’s protection was secured under a US military umbrella. Despite these factors, Japan chose to set up a Self-Defence Force (SDF) to defend its home islands. Over time, the nature of SDF’s operations was calibrated to bring it in line with prevailing circumstances. For instance, in November 2001, SDF was dispatched to the Indian Ocean to provide support to US military action in Afghanistan. This move showed Japan’s willingness to adjust interpretation of its constitution to contemporary needs.

The Abe cabinet’s latest step should be seen as a continuation of a series of small steps to adjust to prevailing circumstances. Over the last two decades, East Asian countries have had to adjust policies to two developments. In the mid-90s, North Korea tested missiles and began developing nuclear weapons materials. Simultaneously China rapidly modernized its military, followed by growing territorial disputes in the East China Sea. When seen in this context, Abe cabinet’s move is merely a manifestation of a sovereign nation’s inclination to secure its legitimate interests.

Japan is unique in the manner in which it evolved in the second half of 20th century. A constitution put together after World War II by the occupier, US, was wholeheartedly embraced by people of the country. It is remarkable that a constitution that was literally thrust on Japan turned out to be so resilient. When a measure such as constitutional amendments is used, Japan’s constitution has been more stable than India. Against this backdrop, the Shinzo Abe government’s reinterpretion of its constitution is disquieting. Pacifism, the essence of Japan’s resilient constitution, is now under threat. No wonder there have been street protests, even an extreme case of a man setting himself on fire, to express anguish about this reinterpretation.

Japan’s security has been guaranteed by the nature of its alliance with US. There has been no change in core aspects of this alliance over decades and US continues to guarantee Japan’s security in the event of aggression. It is not that Japan gets protection for free. The security pact provided US with the right to establish military bases in Japan, which were used for combat operations during the Vietnam War. Pacifism in a somewhat hostile neighbourhood does require some sacrifice and Japanese have had a troublesome time in dealing with US bases. Despite territorial disputes with China over Senkaku Islands in China Sea, there is little to justify a reinterpretation of the key feature of Japan’s constitution.

Japan’s constitution does not forbid self-defence. Consequently, for the last six decades the country has had a standing army to protect itself from military aggression. A standing army and a wide-ranging alliance with US are enough to keep its borders secure. It’s a pity that short-term threats have pushed Japan into giving up a precious part of its constitution, pacifism.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.